LITTLE ROCK — The Arkansas Supreme Court has tossed out a judge's ruling striking down the state's voter ID law, but stopped short of ruling on the constitutionality of the measure.

Justices on Wednesday vacated a Pulaski County judge's decision that the law violates Arkansas' constitution. Pulaski County Circuit Judge Tim Fox had struck down the law in a case that had focused on how absentee ballots are handled under the law, but justices stayed his ruling while they considered an appeal.

Justices said Fox didn't have the authority to strike down the law in the case focusing on absentee ballots.

Fox has also ruled the law unconstitutional in a separate case, but said he wouldn't block its enforcement during this month's primary. That ruling is also being appealed to the high court.

Displaying 1 - 10 of 19 total comments

Now it's time for this same article to come out substituting "voter-ID" with "gay marriage".

The promoters of same-sex “marriage” propose the union between two men or two women. This denies the self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women which find their complementarity in marriage. It also denies the specific primary purpose of marriage: the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children.

So, Dontcall, you are saying that unless a couple is able or wants to procreate, there is no reason for marriage? And carrying this a step further, unless procreation is the desired result, there is no reason for sex? Try selling that one!

What is the problem with showing an ID to vote? Supposedly this law alienates the poor and minorities? What do they present at the welfare office to apply for aid? How do they cash a check? I thought people were required to have some form of ID whether you drive or not. Voter fraud is not a fantasy dreamed up by the GOP. It is prevalent and widespread. The Democrats don't want a fair election. They can't win that way.

This is somewhat surprising considering the liberal bent of the current Arkansas Supreme Court. That only shows how far out of touch is little Timmy Fox..Hey dontcallmenames - Don't expect the same results with GBLTQ marriage. I fear these Supremes will be every bit as tyrannical and hypocritical as Chris Piazza. Hypocritical? From one side of his mouth Piazza says the state cannot limit the definition of marriage to one man and one woman while out the other side of his mouth he says the definition of marriage CAN be limited to one man/woman and/or one woman/man..Hey Vickie - Do you have any idea what percentage of the GBLTQ bullies that insist on getting "married" are doing so to have kids and raise a family? Based on limited research that percentage is less than one 1. That's one of many reasons why GBLTQ marriage makes a mockery of the institution. And yes, the divorce rate is off the charts but MOST straight married couples begin with natural procreative intentions, unlike GBLTQ's.

C'mon, this stuff is easy. Conservatives are basically against all sex unless for procreation. Read up on perrenial Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum, as he makes it clear sex is for procreation only, period! So according to conservative ideology, a married couple should have sex maybe ten or twenty times in their life, total, enough to create one to five or six children. Perhaps the conservatives would allow lots of sex if the couple is named, "Duggar." Anyway, since gays cannot procreate, according to conservative ideology, they should not have sex at all! Obviously, marriage is out of the question for gays. Conservatives believe Jesus and the Apostle Paul basically despised sex (Paul wrote that celibacy is best). This is why conservatives hate abortion and birth control, because abortion and birth control allow women to have sex freely, without fear of pregnancy or forced childbirth.

I don't understand how the democrats can say that requiring an ID to vote would cause undue hardship on minorities and the poor, yet didn't seem to mind when their party took everybody's choice for healthcare away from them and required them to purchase a policy they could not afford or want. now that's a hardship!